[ietf-dkim] Review of draft-fenton-dkim-threats-01
ned.freed at mrochek.com
Mon Oct 31 07:06:50 PST 2005
> Ned Freed <ned.freed at mrochek.com> writes:
> >> Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> >> Hmm... Maybe, but I think my comments are in line with comments
> >> I've made previously. It's possible that my comments don't
> >> agree with Russ's, of course.
> > They don't. When the issue of what does or does not need to be in the threat
> > analysis came up back in August, I very specifically asked for guidance as to
> > what did or did not belong in there. I did so because I was confident that no
> > matter what we put in the document someone would come along with a differing
> > view and tell us we had it all wrong. I therefore wanted to get on the record
> > what was, and more important wasn't, needed.
> I'm not sure what you mean by "needed" here. If by "needed", you
> mean "required to get Russ to approve your WG", that's one thing.
First of all, this isn't "my" WG, and it is completely inappropriate and rather
offensive to refer to it as such. Second, the document is being developed
specifically and directly as part of the WG chartering process. That isn't "one
thing", it's the "only thing".
> If by needed you mean "having an adequate analysis of the problem",
> that's quite another. What I'm saying is that I think you have
> an inadequate analysis of the problem.
As it happens I disagree, but since the goal here is to produce a very narrowly
focused document to support creation of the WG to work specifically on DKIM,
not to produce a document that addresses any of the various ancillary topics
you want to see addressed, I see no point in debating the adequacy of the
> With regard to the rest of your message, I don't really want to
> get into a bunch of hermeneutics about Russ's message. Suffice
> to say that I don't agree with your interpretation of Russ's
> message as conflicting with mine.
Well, the conflict seems to me, and to several others who have posted, to be
quite direct and obvious. But since the things you seem to be after is of no
relevance to the matter at hand, I agree that there's no point in continuing
the discussion of this. Nor IMO is there any point in addressing most of your
More information about the ietf-dkim